Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Is This What the Tea Party is?

Recs

5

November 03, 2010 – Comments (13)

Haven't the authors of these two posts spent the last year advocating for Tea Party principles?

In the case of the Tea Party, is that principle an abdication of reponsibility for results to an unelected "free market"?

In the case of these authors, is that principle an abdication of responsibility for the persuasiveness of their previous posts?

Why I am Not Voting Today - Fleabagger

Tea Party Betrayal - Whereaminow

Hoping for the best,

Devoish

13 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 03, 2010 at 7:31 AM, cthomas1017 (98.62) wrote:

You have to discern the subtleties between people who are consistently critical (but with no apparent action to back up their proclamations) and those who are willing to move things in a direction they see as being in the right direction.

There has been a propensity to try and generalize the Teapartiers into a single issue or platform or belief system.  That misses the entire point of what is driving the Teaparties.  Notice the plural.  American media wants to generalize and categorize everything so that it fits into a nice little 30 second piece that fits between commercials.  Trying to put a label on the Teaparties is like trying to saddle an entire heard of mustangs with a single saddle and no rope.  Too many people headed in too many directions.  And the Teaparties' leaders are just fine with that.  You can criticize and make predictions all you want as to whether that will be sustainable, but in the end, I believe it's a very powerful driving force (yet completely misunderstood, even within the Teaparties).

Report this comment
#2) On November 03, 2010 at 7:48 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

cthomas1017

Good points.  I would add that I have no idea if the Tea Party is really unified as "party."  

For me, I still feel I have no party to vote for. I am socially liberal, but that takes a back see to three main issues that hold this country back: fiat money, debt and "defense."  I feel republicans have not done their job.  It is easy to be a democrat, but I had always hope republicans would make the tough decisions.

Sadly, this hasn't happened.  Even with the latest results I worry for my kids future as they are saddled with debt and inflation.

Report this comment
#3) On November 03, 2010 at 8:34 AM, ChrisGraley (29.65) wrote:

I'll let them defend their own posts, but to me it shows more responsibility than most people that vote the party ticket across the board.

It's seems like the above people are actually looking at issues when making decisions.

I believe you had the same concerns about the liberal candidate for governer of NY not too long ago. Is that what's happening with the liberal party as well

Report this comment
#4) On November 03, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Turfscape (44.83) wrote:

devoish,

To be fair, David (whereaminow) does not advocate for the Tea Party. He is a very outspoken Libertarian and advocate of von Mises.

I think the confusion lies in that the Tea Party started out as a group of people who sought to carry those same principles forward...but ended up being the GOP with a new nametag (in other words, almost the polar opposite of Libertarianism).

But, as he is a very capable blogger, I suppose I should let David answer for himself.

Report this comment
#5) On November 03, 2010 at 2:34 PM, FleaBagger (28.16) wrote:

I never really followed the Tea Party stuff, though what I heard about it at the beginning had me pretty excited. A bunch of people were rallying together to express outrage at ever-increasing government spending, and the burden on the economy that that entails. The more I heard about Tea Party speakers raging against illegal immigration and other illiberal, conservative issues, the more I distanced myself from the Tea Party.

I'm a libertarian. I like the idea of not voting. I think the Republic was a mistake, and democracy is an even bigger catastrophe, and a clue to the benefit of low voter turnout is the panic that sets in amongst the ruling class and their house organ, the mainstream media, when voter turnout is low. It signals to them that we do not support their agenda. We are free that hour (or four) that we did not stand in line to cast our unqualified support behind a liar for 2, 4, or 6 years of rulership and assaults on our liberties, and we are freer when they are worried about the weak mandate of 10% lower turnout.

For me, it's win-win. I may still vote for libertarian candidates, if they pledge to support any reduction in government power while upholding the standard of absolute freedom, but frankly I've never seen a U.S. senator or president stand by even a single libertarian principle espoused in a campaign, let alone a coherent libertarian platform. As for U.S. reps, their record is pretty lame, too, in most districts.

I confess I remain ignorant of candidates for local offices, and I wish I weren't. I do not endorse such ignorance, but confess my own. Perhaps there are many fine libertarians running for local office throughout the country, and we would be better off voting for them than either voting for "electable" candidates or staying home. I will research that issue in the future, once I have found a place to settle.

Meanwhile, no one is going to make me feel bad for not voting for a Republican, Democrat, or Greenie. They're all pushing us toward totalitarian statism, one step at a time. I will not be a part of that. 

Report this comment
#6) On November 03, 2010 at 2:35 PM, FleaBagger (28.16) wrote:

Devo - I forgot to thank you for linking to my blog. It gets pretty lonely there sometimes.

Report this comment
#7) On November 03, 2010 at 6:21 PM, devoish (96.48) wrote:

cthomas,

I agree with your reply. So then what did they vote for? Freedom? Liberty? To do what? Promise not to pollute - but be free to do so? Policys to concentrate power into the fewest hands possible?

I think Americans blew it big time.

The last time we voted for "small Government" and liberty and freedom, we invaded Iraq and gave its oil to private interests.

Hope we get better this time.

Report this comment
#8) On November 03, 2010 at 7:59 PM, sawchain (< 20) wrote:

A tea party is an event, not a group of people.

Report this comment
#9) On November 04, 2010 at 7:12 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Devo,

I'm not grapsing what exactly you are asking, or even if you are being serious. 

Are you trying to imply that a person who rejects the Tea Party represents the Tea Party?  Because you have my article up there, where I reject the Tea Party beneath a headline that asks if I am the Tea Party. 

Can you clarify? 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On November 04, 2010 at 8:19 AM, devoish (96.48) wrote:

Imply?

I am saying it is pretty lame to spend a year promoting Ron Paul and Tea Party Libertarian political slogans, rail against an overreaching big Government that was so small it could not impose itself upon the the oil or financial industrys, and then at the last minute run away when the people who sound the same as you, get to try to execute on those slogans.

You could at least wait until they commit and allow the collusion you rail against, before you turn the back of your coat to the sound-alikes.

It was over a year ago I told you it would be a long time before I believed any politician who ran saying they were for smaller Government, or the people who promoted small Government slogans. 

Such Politicains have never been good for the majority of the people they represent, and they have not done well here.

Libertarians disavow that Reagan was truly small government, they also disavow both Bush's, and certainly Clinton and Obama.

And now, you already disavow yourself of the Tea Party Libertarians whose slogans match yours.

It seems to me that is simply good politics, as it sets you up to innocently promote the same slogans two years from now, regardless of the results.

Regards,

Steven

Report this comment
#11) On November 04, 2010 at 8:41 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

LOL, ok devo.  If you think Ron Paul, Austrian School economics, libertarianism, or rational anarchy are the same ideas as Rubio, O'Donnell, and Whitman then I'm not one to stand in your way. 

Simplifying is fun.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#12) On November 04, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Turfscape (44.83) wrote:

devoish wrote:
"And now, you already disavow yourself of the Tea Party Libertarians whose slogans match yours."

It needs to be stated that "Tea Party" and "Libertarians" are conflicting philosophies. Kinda like saying "Free Market Communists"...the two just don't jive.

Report this comment
#13) On November 04, 2010 at 9:54 AM, cthomas1017 (98.62) wrote:

devoish,

Again, you're trying to pigeon-hole and generalize the teapartiers as if they are of a single mind, issue, or platform.  You have to be able to step back and comprehend the movement rather than trying to understand them as a single entity.  Until then, trying to describe the teaparties would be a waste of time.  Sorry, I thought I was clear the first time.  I don't mean to be condescending and I apologize if it comes across that way.  My intent is to be blunt, not insulting.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement